453610

012
WMR0010.1177/0734242X12453610Laner et al.Waste Management & Research

Original Article

Waste Management & Research

Site-specific criteria for the

30(9) Supplement 8899
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
completion of landfill aftercare sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X12453610
wmr.sagepub.com

David Laner, Johann Fellner and Paul H Brunner

Abstract
Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills need to be managed after closure to assure long-term environmental compatibility. Aftercare
can be completed when the authorities consider the landfill not likely to pose a threat to humans and the environment. In this
work, a methodology for deriving site-specific aftercare completion criteria is presented and its application is illustrated via a case
study. The evaluation method combines models addressing waste emission behavior, long-term barrier performance, and pollutant
migration to assess the potential impact of landfill emissions on the environment. Based on the definition of acceptable impact levels
at certain points of compliance, scenario- and pollutant-specific aftercare completion criteria are derived. The methodology was
applied to a closed MSW landfill in Austria and potential aftercare durations were determined. While landfill gas emissions may
become environmentally tolerable within decades at the site, leachate-related aftercare measures were expected to be necessary for
centuries (primarily as a result of ammonium). Although the evaluation comes with large uncertainties, it allows for linking aftercare
intensity and duration with respect to an environmentally compatible state of the landfill in the absence of aftercare. However, further
case studies including regulatory review and acceptance are needed to use the methodology in a decision support tool on aftercare
completion.

Keywords
Landfill aftercare, landfill emissions, completion criteria, post-closure care, scenario analysis, MSW landfill, case study

Introduction
Landfills are key elements in modern waste management, as
they represent anthropogenic sinks for substances which cannot
be recovered for economic or ecologic reasons. In general, land-
fills need to be managed after closure to assure the long-term
protection of humans and the environment. This aftercare period
typically comprises the monitoring of landfill emissions (e.g.
leachate) and receiving systems (e.g. groundwater), and the
maintenance and control of landfill facilities (e.g. cover, lea-
chate collection and treatment), as well as site surveillance (e.g.
restricted access and use). It can be brought to an end when the
authorities consider the landfill to no longer pose a threat to
humans and the environment in the absence of aftercare (e.g.
European Parliament, 1999). While simple qualitative criteria
are often suggested as a basis to evaluate aftercare, rigorous
methodologies and data to evaluate aftercare and aftercare com-
pletion are difficult to build and are rarely available (Laner
et al., 2012). Different approaches have been suggested to eval-
uate landfill aftercare and its completion (e.g. Environment
Agency, 2010; Morris and Barlaz, 2011; Scharff et al., 2011;
Stegmann et al. 2006), but a consistent methodology to derive
aftercare completion criteria in view of long-term environmen-
tal risks associated with a closed landfill has not yet been estab-
lished. However, such a methodology is needed as a basis for
the design of appropriate funding accrual mechanisms for after-
care (i.e. by reducing the uncertainty about the intensity and
duration of aftercare) and for supporting authorities decisions
on the extension, reduction or completion of aftercare (Barlaz et
al., 2002). Therefore, it is the aim of this work to introduce a
methodology for defining site-specific aftercare completion cri-
teria and to illustrate its application to a closed MSW landfill.
While the evaluation methodology is applicable to different
kinds of landfills in principle (Laner, 2011), in this article the
focus is put on municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. On the
one hand MSW landfills have been, or still are, the major waste
disposal option in many parts of the world. On the other hand,
emissions from these landfills, mainly associated with the
degradation of organic matter and the leaching of inorganic
components (e.g. Bookter and Ham, 1982; El-Fadel et al., 1997;
Farquhar and Rovers, 1973; Kjeldsen et al., 2002), may be of
potential environmental significance for many decades or centu-
ries (Belevi and Baccini, 1989; Krmpelbeck, 2000). Hence,
environmentally-protective and cost-efficient strategies for the
long-term management of these landfills are urgently needed.
Institute for Water Quality, Resource and Waste Management, Vienna
University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
Corresponding author:
David Laner, Institute for Water Quality, Resource and Waste
Management, Vienna University of Technology, Karlsplatz 13, 1040
Vienna, Austria
Email: david.laner@tuwien.ac.at

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016

Laner et al. 89
Figure 1. Illustration of the procedure to derive aftercare completion criteria at a closed landfill site.
First, we present a methodology to evaluate landfill environ-
mental compatibility via deriving site-specific aftercare com-
pletion criteria. In this work aftercare completion is defined as
the end of regulated aftercare (landfill owner is released from
the responsibility for the site) because the closed landfill is not
likely to present a threat to human health and the environment
in the absence of aftercare. In the subsequent section the appli-
cation of the evaluation methodology to a closed MSW landfill
in Austria is illustrated and potential aftercare durations are
determined based on site-specific completion criteria. Finally,
we discuss the application of the evaluation methodology as a
basis to optimize landfill long-term management and provide an
outlook on potential future research activities.
Method to determine aftercare
completion criteria
The evaluation of landfill environmental compatibility needs to
address different aspects significant to the environmental
impact associated with a landfill. These include the behavior of
the deposited waste and associated emissions, the (long-term)
performance of the technical barrier system, and the migration
of pollutants in environmental media and potential adverse
effects on the environment. In essence, the evaluation of after-
care and its completion resembles a site-specific endeavor about
acceptable risks (Scharff et al., 2011).
The methodology to derive aftercare completion criteria
consists of several elements: (i) models on emission charac-
teristics; (ii) models on the performance of the containment sys-
tem (iii) substance migration models in the environment (i.e.
subsurface environment); and (iv) points of compliance where
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016
certain criteria have to be met. These elements are combined to
derive site-specific completion criteria. Subsequent to the eval-
uation, monitoring of emission levels and criteria related to the
state of the landfill (e.g. geotechnical stability, cover performance)
is carried out to either confirm the models underlying the evalu-
ation or to adapt the models to incorporate the new observations.
The procedure to derive completion criteria for a closed landfill
is schematically illustrated in Figure 1.
Characterization of the landfill-
environment system
The basis of the evaluation is the collection of data and infor-
mation about the conditions at a site (e.g. climate, geology,
topographic location), the containment system (i.e. technical
barriers), and the deposited waste and associated emissions
(see Figure 1). In general, data need to be critically evaluated.
For monitoring data this means, for instance, checking the
representativeness of the sampling location, measurement
protocols, collection efficiencies or leachate discharge rates
during sampling. Monitoring at closed landfills could be opti-
mized by gathering information in view of the situation at the
site and the significance of the data for modeling purposes
(e.g. Zweifel et al., 1999). For instance, measurements includ-
ing a wide range of parameters could be done once every few
years, whereas routine monitoring could be restricted to a few
parameters (e.g. electric conductivity, leachate discharge rate,
ammonium, and total organic carbon) measured at a higher
frequency/resolution to gain process understanding for model
development. Provided that conditions at the site are constant
(e.g. after top cover installation) the observation of a few
90 Waste Management & Research 30(9) Supplement
parameters can also allow for statements about the behavior
of other parameters for which correlations have been estab-
lished (e.g. Kylefors, 2003; Laner et al., 2011b). In all cases,
input data and models are uncertain, at least as a result of
natural variability, and should be treated accordingly (e.g.
Gibbons and Bull, 2006).
Emission parameters and scenario
analysis
Environmentally significant emission parameters are identified
based on the observations at the site and waste characterization
data (e.g. shaking leaching tests). The concentrations of relevant
leachate constituents are predicted based on the model suggested
by Belevi and Baccini (1989), which is adapted to consider water
flow heterogeneity and the continuous release of substances due
to ongoing organic degradation processes (Laner et al., 2011a).
According to the model, the substance concentrations in the lea-
chate decrease exponentially with the increase of liquid-to-solid
ratio (amount of water in liters that passed through 1 kg of waste
dry matter) of the deposited waste. To establish the model, infor-
mation about the initial leachate concentrations (after landfill
closure and after gas generation has significantly dropped), the
mobilizable amount of substances of the waste, the heterogene-
ity of water flow through the waste, the rate of water infiltration
per year and the amount of landfilled waste is necessary. The
model parameters are determined based on investigations of the
landfilled waste and available monitoring data at the site (gathered
in step 1 of Figure 1). The model is fitted to emission character-
istics observed after landfill closure and estimates on future
leachate composition are derived with the calibrated model as a
function of liquid-to-solid ratio. However, it should be noted that
the described emission model assumes constant water flow pat-
terns within the landfilled waste and no change of the dominant
release mechanisms. Thus, within a scenario to investigate the effect
of a change in the landfills water flow pattern, the emission
model would have to be adapted to account for a re-distribution
of water in the waste and a potential increase in leachate concen-
tration levels (Laner et al., 2011a).
Mathematical models to describe the rate of landfill gas gen-
eration in a landfill are typically based on first order kinetics
(Barlaz et al., 1990). The models differ with respect to their
complexity and with respect to basic assumptions on the bio-
degradability of organic matter (i.e. degradation rate or half-life
values for refuse components). In any case, gas generation mod-
els need to be calibrated with site-specific data to allow for
credible projections because actual gas generation is dependent
on site-specific factors, such as waste characteristics, moisture
content and distribution, temperature, pH, microbial communi-
ties, nutrient availability and the presence of inhibitors. As gas
generation models typically overestimate the amount of gas
produced at the site because of the assumption of optimal condi-
tions (Krmpelbeck, 2000), they should be adapted to fit observed
gas collection and/or emission data. However, it should be
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016
noted that gas collection efficiency is always below 100% and
that other factors need to be considered when using measured
gas data (e.g. suction of air in active gas collection, potentially
occurring methane oxidation processes in the landfill cover, etc.).
Technical barriers typically consist of several components
with low-permeability mineral layers (e.g. clay liners), geomem-
branes (e.g. high density polyethylene (HDPE) liners), geosyn-
thetic clay layers, drainage layers and recultivation layers being
among the most important ones. The performance of the techni-
cal barrier system is the product of the interaction of the different
elements. In the short term the most important factors with
respect to barrier performance are proper design and construc-
tion of the system and geotechnical stability issues (Bonaparte
et al., 2002), while the long-term performance is dependent pri-
marily on the stresses induced on the system (Inyang, 2004). The
elements of a technical barrier system have different service
lives. Estimates of the long-term performance of different barrier
components (under the assumption that no maintenance and
repair is taking place) range from several decades for leachate
drainage systems to geologic time periods (thousands of years)
for low-permeability mineral liners (e.g. Rowe, 2005). As field
data are lacking to evaluate the long-term performance of con-
tainment systems, a set of scenarios is used to illustrate the effect
of different containment system performance levels on landfill
emissions. A first scenario assumes an unchanged performance
of the barrier system; a second one investigates the slow deterio-
ration of the technical barriers and a consequent decrease of the
barrier performance levels; and a third one is used to illustrate the
effect of a total failure of the containment system. The barrier
performance levels are estimated based on an evaluation of the
actual system design and function and, in case of an expected
gradual performance decrease over time, on a weighting matrix
derived from expert interviews assessing the importance of dif-
ferent factors for long-term performance (for detailed informa-
tion about the barrier evaluation scheme see Laner et al. (2011b)
or Laner (2011)). The different barrier performance levels are
combined with appropriate emission models (e.g. constant
release mechanisms and unaltered water flow pattern are assumed)
and scenario-based emission estimates are derived. However, as
the estimated barrier performance levels are highly speculative,
they should not be seen as reliable predictions, but as specific
scenario conditions used to highlight the effect of different bar-
rier deterioration patterns. Overall, the layout and number of
emission scenarios is dependent on potential future conditions at
the site characteristics on the one hand (e.g. site in a flood plain)
and the expected after-use of the landfill on the other (e.g. human
intrusion as an event to be included).
Transport pathways and pollutant migration
The scenario-based estimates on future emission levels form the
input for pollutant migration modeling (Figure 1, step 3).
Although several pollutant migration pathways might be relevant
for a closed landfill (e.g. subsurface migration of landfill gas or
Laner et al. 91
discharge of collected leachate to surface waters), only the migra-
tion of leachate in the subsurface is addressed below. This is
owing to the potential risk a landfill poses to the groundwater and
because the leachate pathway is considered to dominate the long-
term pollution potential of MSW landfills (Kjeldsen et al., 2002;
Krmpelbeck, 2000).
Leachate seeping from a landfill enters the zone below the
landfill and potentially contaminates the groundwater under-
neath. While naturally occurring processes in the subsurface can
potentially attenuate pollutants present in landfill leachate, there
is no easy-to-use protocol available on how to assess attenuation
potentials for a specific environment (Christensen et al., 2000).
The complexity of models to describe substance migration in
the subsurface varies from simple screening tables to sophisti-
cated numerical models. As the model complexity relates directly
to the quality and quantity of data to establish, calibrate and vali-
date the model, rather simple and robust models are used to
describe pollutant migration in the subsurface within the evalua-
tion methodology. On the one hand this is in accordance with the
substantial uncertainties of input data (e.g. projections of emis-
sion rates or typically poor data availability on subsurface proper-
ties at closed landfill sites), but, on the other hand, in a higher tier
evaluation simpler models could be replaced by more complex
models, provided that additional data are collected at the site.
The pollutant migration in the vadose zone below the landfill
is evaluated with the one-dimensional model by Schneider and
Stfen (2004), which is based on the analytical solution of the
advection-dispersion equation (see van Genuchten, 1982). In
the model, a continuous, stationary and downward flow field in
the unsaturated zone is assumed without initial pollution of the
transport pathway. Processes considered in the model include
advection, dispersion, diffusion in soil liquid and gas, linear sorp-
tion and degradation at a first order rate. As a result, the model
calculates the maximum pollutant concentration above the
groundwater surface [a more detailed description of the model
features and its application can be found in Laner (2011)]. For
scenarios with a varying leachate generation rate (e.g. gradual
decrease in barrier performance), a mass balance approach is
used (i.e. the pollutant concentration in the leachate at the time of
maximum load equals the concentration entering the groundwa-
ter). The effect of leachate mixing with groundwater and pollut-
ant migration in the groundwater are also described with a mass
balance approach [for more details see Laner (2011)]. The calcu-
lated concentrations at the points of compliance (PoCs) along the
migration pathway represent predicted maximum concentration
levels for the pollutants.
Determination of completion criteria
The estimated maximum concentrations along the migration
pathway are used to derive scenario- and pollutant-specific atten-
uation factors (AFs). The AF between two points of compliance
is defined as the ratio of the maximum concentration at the first
to the maximum concentration at the second (AF = Cfirst/Csecond).
Subsequently, the AFs, together with specific quality criteria at a
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016
certain point of compliance (e.g. groundwater mixing zone), can
be used to calculate tolerable landfill emission levels (i.e. emis-
sions that do not cause a violation of the quality criteria applied
at the PoC) for each scenario. The procedure to determine com-
pletion criteria for landfill leachate follows a backwards calcula-
tion from the critical PoC to the source (landfill base). In Figure 2
AFs specific to a substance and an emission scenario are illus-
trated schematically. Assume 10 mg/l of Cl was the quality crite-
ria to be fulfilled at PoC 3, then the tolerable concentration of
Cl in the landfill leachate is 200 mg/l (10 mg/l225), using
the data from Figure 2. Thus, if the Cl concentration in the
leachate is 200 mg/l or lower, future leachate emissions will be
environmentally tolerable provided that the conditions of the
underlying emission scenario are met. Therefore, in addition to
the emission criteria the completion of aftercare is associated
with criteria referring to the underlying emission scenario. For
example, the assumption of optimal containment system perfor-
mance within the underlying emission scenario would imply the
maintenance and repair of the containment system (after the ter-
mination of aftercare) as a necessary completion criterion. The
only emission scenario with no criteria in addition to tolerable
emissions would be one where the tolerable emission levels
relate to scenario conditions of waste without any containment
and fully exposed to external conditions at the site [i.e. waste of
final storage quality; see Baccini (1989)]. In any case, it will be
necessary to outline the basic long-term management within the
procedure to derive completion criteria, thereby making the eval-
uation of long-term environmental risks more transparent to deci-
sion makers.
Landfill gas emissions can be assessed based on acceptable
area-specific methane flow rates into the top cover [a tolerable,
maximum area-specific inflow of methane to the top cover of 0.5
liters CH4 m2 h1 has been suggested by Stegmann et al. (2006)]
or based on tolerable, maximum methane flux to the atmosphere
[e.g. 0.05 liters CH4 m2 h1, see (Fellner et al., 2008)]. The meth-
ane flux into the top cover is estimated based on the predictions of
the gas generation model, assuming homogeneous inflow. Methane
emissions to the atmosphere are calculated in consideration of
potentially occurring methane oxidation processes in the cover
(e.g. Huber-Humer, 2004). Constant average annual fractions of
oxidized methane are often used [e.g. 10% oxidation is suggested
by the IPCC (2007)], although such an approach does not account
for the effect of various factors, such as the level of methane flux
into the cover, or climatic conditions on methane oxidation rates
(Chanton et al., 2011). In general, high methane oxidation rates
should be demonstrated in the field-scale over an extended period
of time before they are used to assess methane emissions to the
atmosphere. Screening models to estimate methane oxidation rates
should at least consider the methane flux into the top cover.
Confirmation monitoring and
surveillance
Confirmation monitoring is necessary after the evaluation to
underpin model estimates (i.e. emission models), as well as to
92 Waste Management & Research 30(9) Supplement
Figure 2. Scheme of the subsurface migration pathway with scenario- and substance-specific attenuation factors (AF)
between the different points of compliance (PoC).
observe whether the conditions at the site (e.g. top cover perfor-
mance, leachate collection and recovery system) develop in
accordance with the assumptions of the emission scenario
underlying the evaluation. If model estimates and scenario
assumptions are supported by the observations, the evaluation
results and the corresponding completion criteria are validated.
In case emissions and/or conditions at the site develop differ-
ently, the evaluation needs to be adapted or repeated to account
for the observed landfill behavior. Consequently, it is expected
that the application of the evaluation methodology and the
determination of aftercare completion criteria resemble itera-
tive processes continuously increasing the reliability of the
assessment of long-term environmental risks. Therefore, the
evaluation of the desired state of the landfill at the end of after-
care should be started early during the aftercare period to opti-
mize measurements at the site (i.e. goal-oriented monitoring)
and to increase the reliability of the evaluation models. In any
case, it can be expected that the authorities will demand appro-
priate documentation and model validation before they may
assume the responsibility for a closed landfill and release the
owner from aftercare obligations. After aftercare completion,
site surveillance assures that the appropriate after-use of the site
and pollutant concentrations in the ambient environment are
monitored to demonstrate no unacceptable impacts. Depending
on the long-term emission scenario underlying the evaluation,
further activities may be part of the long-term management con-
cept (e.g. cover inspection and maintenance) to be implemented
by the responsible authorities.
Case study: Breitenau landfill
To illustrate the application of the described methodology, after-
care completion criteria for the Breitenau landfill are derived and
the duration of aftercare is estimated for different (hypothetical)
management scenarios. As the Breitenau landfill has been in the
focus of previous studies addressing the emission behavior of the
landfill (Fellner et al., 2009; Laner et al., 2011b), the focus of this
section will not be on detailed data concerning the emission char-
acteristics of the landfill, but on the application of the evaluation
methodology as a whole.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016
Site description and landfill design
The Breitenau experimental landfill is located in Austria, around
60 km south of Vienna (47 44 37 N, 16 08 28 E). Between
1987 and 1988 approximately 95,000 metric tons of municipal
solid waste were disposed of in three compartments in a former
gravel pit. The landfill compartments were equipped with differ-
ent top covers (earthen covers or gravel layers with or without
compost on top) and with different sealing systems [i.e. a HDPE
membrane with (compartments 1 and 2) or without (compartment 3)
a mineral liner of 1.7-m thickness above] (Riehl-Herwirsch et
al., 1995). After 20 years of temporary cover, a final cover was
been constructed in 2009, consisting of an equalization layer
above the waste, a composite liner (mineral liner of 0.5 m
thickness below a HDPE membrane), a drainage layer and a
top soil layer (Laner et al., 2011a). The landfill is extraordinarily
well investigated as it served as an experimental site for
numerous research studies conducted by the Vienna University
of Technology (e.g. Binner et al., 1997; Fellner et al., 2009).
Emission scenarios
Emission models. Extensive monitoring data are available
with high resolution for landfill leachate with continuous moni-
toring of leachate generation rates since June 2001 and of selected
leachate quality parameters (i.e. electric conductivity and tem-
perature) since October 2003 (Laner et al., 2011b). Emission
models are established for ammonia-nitrogen (NH4-N), chloride
(Cl) and chemical oxygen demand (COD), as these parameters
still exceed current regulatory standards for the discharge of
leachate into surface water bodies by at least one order of magni-
tude and are expected to be significant for long-term leachate
pollution at most MSW landfills (Kjeldsen et al., 2002). The mea-
sured concentrations (either measured directly in the storage tank
or the weighted average of leachate measurements for the three
compartments) of NH4-N, Cl and COD in the leachate are shown
in Figure 3, together with emission model estimates before and
after final cover installation. Although measurements scatter sub-
stantially along the fitted model curves, a decreasing concentra-
tion trend was apparent before top cover installation. However,
after the construction of the final cover leachate concentrations of
NH4-N, Cl and COD increased by approximately a factor two.
Laner et al. 93

The major reason for the drastic rise in concentration levels after
cover installation is supposed to be a partial redistribution of
water flow paths in the waste body due to the construction of the
cover (particularly because of the re-arrangement of top waste
layers) causing the leaching of substances from waste newly par-
ticipating in the water flow (Laner et al., 2011b). The formulation
of the emission models for NH4-N, Cl and COD are given in
Table 1. Parameter values are chosen in a plausible range (Laner
et al., 2011b) with the priority to fit the model to the monitoring
data. While the period before final cover installation is used for
model calibration only (determination of parameters based on the
observed concentration trends), the model formulation for the
period after final cover construction is the basis for emission sce-
nario estimates.
In contrast to leachate data, landfill gas data are scarce and of
poor quality at the site. A gas collection (gas wells) and treatment
(flare) system was installed at the landfill and operated from
1989 to 1995, but the collected amount and composition of land-
fill gas was only documented until 1991 (Figure 4). After 1995
there was no active gas management (one landfill gas extraction
experiment took place in 2005) until 2009, when the gas collec-
tion system was upgraded in the course of the final cover instal-
lation to treat the produced landfill gas in a biofilter. Because of
the poor data (including unknown collection efficiencies), rather
conservative estimates for methane production at the landfill
have been developed using the LandGem model (US EPA, 2005)
with a methane generation potential (L0) of 90 m Mg1 waste and
a methane generation rate (k) of 0.035 and 0.050 respectively.
Figure 4 illustrates that both estimated methane generation curves
are well above methane collection data (even after final cover
installation, when collection efficiency is supposed to be high,
i.e. >80%). Hence, they represent an upper boundary for methane
generation rather than a realistic estimate (especially considering
the minimization of water infiltration after final cover, i.e. within
the first year leachate generation decreased by an order of magni-
tude). Therefore, the methane production rates shown in Figure 4
are treated as worst case scenarios and no further scenarios
are derived to evaluate future methane generation and potential
emission rates.

Table 1. Model formulation and parameters to estimate the concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen (NH4-N), chloride (Cl) and
chemical oxygen demand (COD).

Model
c 0,leach c 0,org
Formulaa (
L
h )t (
L
h )t
c (t ) = c 0,leach e
m0,leach S + m0,org S
c 0,org e

General model parameters h = 4 (highly heterogeneous water flow)

L/S before final cover = 0.0196 l kg1 DM year1 (also used for the projections of
organic degradation)
Parameters for Cl After closure:
m0,leach = 1650 mg kg1 DM; c0,leach = 1200 mg l1
After final cover:
m0,leach = 1360 mg kg1 DM; c0,leach = 990 mg l1b
Parameters for NH4-N After closure:
m0,leach = 50 mg kg1 DM; c0,leach = 300 mg l1
m0,org = 1700 mg kg1 DM [different degradation half-lives for different N pools: 8 yrs
(170 mg kg1), 30 yrs (850 mg kg1) and 70 yrs (680 mg kg1)]; c0,org = 430 mg l1
After final cover:
m0,leach = 40 mg kg1 DM; c0,leach = 220 mg l1b
m0,org = 1570 mg kg1 DM [different degradation half-lives for different N pools: 8 yrs
(140 mg/kg), 30 yrs (780 mg/kg) and 70 yrs (650 mg/kg)]; c0,org = 460 mg/l;
Parameters for COD After closure:
m0,leach = 300 mg kg1 DM; c0,leach = 600 mg l1
m0,org = 1800 mg kg1 DM [different degradation half-lives for different Corg pools: 8 yrs
(180 mg kg1), 30 yrs (900 mg kg1) and 70 yrs (720 mg kg1)]; c0,org = 550 mg l1
After final cover:
m0,leach = 230 mg kg1 DM; c0,leach = 450 mg l1b
m0,org = 1660 mg kg1 DM [different degradation half-lives for different Corg pools: 8
yrs (140 mg/kg), 30 yrs (820 mg/kg) and 70 yrs (690 mg/kg)]; c0,org = 490 mg/l;
aThe second term (c(t)
org) is only relevant for NH4-N and COD. In the case of several fractions of organic matter being considered (different
degradation half-lives), there will be additional terms for each fraction considered.
bc
0,leach is estimated assuming a constant ratio between m0,leach and c0,leach, and in consideration of concentration increases because of reduced
leachate generation.
Caption: c(t), substance concentration at time t (mg l1); t, time after intensive reactor phase (i.e. gas generation has dropped significantly
and leachate concentrations exhibit a downward trend, in years); c0,leach, substance concentration readily leachable after the intensive reactor
phase (mg l1); m0,leach, leachable fraction of mobilizable substances (mg kg1 DM); h, heterogeneity factor of water flow (dimensionless); L/S,
change in the deposited waste L/S ratio per year (l kg1 DM year1); c0,org, substance concentration made available for leaching via continuing
degradation processes directly after the intensive reactor phase (mg l1); m0,org, fraction of mobilizable substances still being made available
via organic degradation (mg kg1 DM).

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016

94 Waste Management & Research 30(9) Supplement

Figure 3. Concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen (NH4-N), chloride (Cl) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the leachate after
landfill closure (from 1991) expressed as a function of the liquid-to-solid ratio (L/S) [measurements and model estimates for the
whole landfilldifferent to Laner et al. (2011b), who considered data relating to one compartment of Breitenau landfill only].

Figure 4. Methane collection data, theoretical methane production according to model estimates (LandGem) and suggested
landfill gas criteria (tolerable flux into the top cover and tolerable flux into the atmosphere).

Scenario analysis. Landfill emissions are estimated using
emission scenarios which are based on the developed emission
models for leachate (Figure 3) and gas (Figure 4), and on assump-
tions concerning the future conditions in and around the landfill.
As no drastic change of release mechanisms and no abrupt re-
distribution of water flow paths are expected at the site during the
next decades to centuries, the emission estimates for the Breit-
enau landfill focus on scenarios addressing different deteriora-
tion patterns of the technical barrier system (see Table 2). The
base line year for all scenarios is 2010 (i.e. time of evaluation)
and the investigation period is set arbitrarily to 300 years.
The Status quo scenario is founded on constant (optimal)
technical barrier performance at the top and at the bottom of the
landfill throughout the modeling period of 300 years. Hence,
0.5% of annual precipitation (633 mm yr1) infiltrates into the
waste, and 99% of the generated leachate is retained at the land-
fill base (1% is released to the subsurface) and drains gravitation-
ally to a leachate collection tank outside the landfill. The emission
estimates for the status quo are shown in Figure 5 (left) with
respect to the leachate parameters Cl, NH4-N and COD. Owing to
the minimal water infiltration rate, the concentrations decrease
slowly in the leachate and approximately halve during the mod-
eling period of 300 years. The total substance loads in the lea-
chate range between 25 kg yr1 (NH4-N) and 36 kg yr1 (Cl) at the
beginning, and decrease at the same rate as the concentrations
(constant infiltration rate is assumed). One percent of the

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016

Laner et al. 95

Table 2. Layouts of the emission scenarios considered to evaluate the long-term pollution hazard of the Breitenau landfill

Scenario Top cover system Base lining system

Status quo Best performance Best performance
Status quo* Best performance Ineffective
Scenario A Gradual decrease of barrier performance Gradual decrease of barrier performance
Scenario A* Gradual decrease of barrier performance Ineffective
Scenario B Ineffective Ineffective

Figure 5. Scenario-based leachate emissions (concentrations and loads) of ammonia-nitrogen (NH4-N), chloride (Cl) and
chemical oxygen demand (COD).

substance loads in the leachate are released to the subsurface
(right vertical axis in Figure 5, bottom left) and 99% is directed
to the leachate collection tank.
As the status quo* scenario assumes an ineffective technical
barrier at the landfill base (see Table 2), the total substance loads
of Cl, NH4-N and COD in the leachate are released to the subsur-
face (Figure 5, bottom left).
Scenario A investigates the effect of a gradual decrease of
technical barrier performance at the top and at the landfill base on
the leachate emissions. The future performance of the contain-
ment systems is evaluated using a procedure addressing the best
and worst service levels of the system, the current performance
of the system, the construction and design of the barriers, and
different factors significant to the long-term barrier functioning
[for details see Laner et al. (2011b)]. For the Breitenau landfill,
the evaluation results in a leachate generation rate of 3.2 mm yr1
at the beginning (best performance level), 32 mm yr1 after 100
years, 77 mm yr1 after 200 years and 107 mm yr1 after 300
years. The respective leachate release rates to the subsurface are
0.03 mm yr1 at the beginning, 3.2 mm yr1 after 100 years, 34
mm yr1 after 200 years and 59 mm yr1 after 300 years. The
estimated concentrations and substance loads in the leachate for
Scenario A are shown in Figure 5 (center). While concentrations
decrease slowly at the beginning the decrease accelerates with
time due to increasing water infiltration rates. The maximum
substance loads in the leachate amount for 106166 kg yr1 and
occur after 60 years (COD), 70 years (Cl) and 130 years (NH4-N)
respectively. The maximum loads released to the subsurface take
place later during the scenario, after 80 years for Cl and after 150
years for NH4-N and COD.
Scenario A* differs from Scenario A by assuming an ineffec-
tive barrier at the landfill base. Therefore, the released substance
loads to the subsurface during Scenario A* are equal to the total
substance loads in the leachate of Scenario A (Figure 5, bottom
center).
Scenario B reflects the worst case with respect to contain-
ment performance, as 25% of the annual precipitation infil-
trates into the waste body (infiltration rate observed during
temporary cover with earthen material) and all the generated
leachate is released to the subsurface (see Table 2). Consequently,
the concentrations in the leachate decrease rapidly during this
scenario (see Figure 5, right) and fall below 100 mg l1 within
30 years for Cl and within 50 years for NH4-N and COD. The
corresponding substance loads are initially very high (1230 kg
NH4-N yr1, 1685 kg COD yr1 and 1780 kg Cl yr1) decreas-
ing to levels of around 55 kg yr1 for NH4-N and COD and to
0.6 kg yr1 in case of Cl after 100 years (see Figure 5, bottom
right).

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016

96 Waste Management & Research 30(9) Supplement

Pollutant migration
The landfill was built in a former gravel pit and is located in the
Steinfeldschotter quarternary gravel terrace formed during the
Wrm ice age. The geologic strata below the landfill therefore
consists mainly of gravel with low contents of sand and silt
(local conglomerations). The distance between the landfill base
and the maximum groundwater levels which have been observed
in the monitoring wells adjacent to the landfill upstream (one
well) and downstream (three wells) is slightly more than 4 m. It
is made up of two soil layers, a thin sandy, silty gravel layer (0.1
m thickness) below the landfill base followed by a loamy gravel
layer with lower sand and silt contents (4.0 m thickness). The
thickness of the aquifer is around 15 m with conglomerated
loamy gravel at the bottom forming the aquitard. The general
groundwater flow direction below the landfill is southwest to
northeast, the average filter velocity in the groundwater is 300 m
yr1 and the contaminated width (cross section through the land-
fill perpendicular to groundwater flow) is 150 m. A schematic
illustration of the leachate pathway in the subsurface is shown
in Figure 6. Emissions to the subsurface percolate through the
vadose zone to reach the PoC 1 located above the groundwater
surface. PoC 2 reflects the emission-induced maximum pol-
lutant concentration after leachate mixing with groundwater,
assuming homogenous mixing along the contaminated width
and over a depth of 0.5 m. PoC 3 is located 100 m downstream
of PoC 2, with dilution between PoC 2 and PoC 3 taking place
solely as a result of local groundwater recharge (15% of annual
precipitation). At PoC 4 the maximum pollutant concentration
due to the release from the landfill is averaged for the top 5 m of
the aquifer (dilution). It may be interesting to evaluate the effect
of a pollutant release on groundwater withdrawal in PoC4 via a
well from the top third of the groundwater stream. In order to
account for the poor resolution of available data (e.g. soil prop-
erties, flow velocities) and the assumptions in the modeling
(e.g. homogeneous release pattern), simple and conservative
transport models are used. Vadose zone transport is described
via the one-dimensional transport developed by Schneider and
Stfen (2004) or using a mass balance approach based on maxi-
mum pollutant loads. Also, groundwater pollutant transport is
evaluated by applying a mass balance approach. Apart from dif-
fusion and longitudinal dispersion in the vadose zone and dilu-
tion in the groundwater, no processes potentially attenuating
pollutant concentrations (i.e. no transversal dispersion, no sorp-
tion, and no transformation) are considered at the site, with the
exception of ammonia nitrogen, as nitrification of ammonia in
the oxygen-rich groundwater (O2 saturation around 80%) may
occur to a certain extent. This is reflected by the quality standard
applied at PoC 3 relating to nitrate-nitrogen in addition to the
quality standard relating to NH4-N in the groundwater (Table 4).
Substance-specific transport parameters (i.e. diffusion coeffi-
cients) are obtained from the literature (Laner, 2011). Subsurface
transport of COD is evaluated exclusively using the mass balance
approach, as the mixture of organic compounds summarized as
COD could not be assigned representative substance-specific
transport parameters (Table 3).
The scenario- and substance-specific AFs resulting from the
transport modeling are shown in Table 3. According to the
results in Table 3 the maximum concentration of chloride for
Scenario A decreases by a factor of 1.8 between the landfill
base and PoC 1 (above the groundwater surface), reducing the
chloride concentration from 990 mg l1 at the source to 565 mg
l1 at PoC 1. As dilution due to mixing of groundwater and
leachate is reflected by the AFs at PoC 2, AF values decrease
for scenarios with higher leachate release rates. Dilution due to
local groundwater recharge (PoC 2 PoC 3) has only a minor
effect on pollutant concentrations, while homogeneously
mixing the pollutants in the top 5 m of the groundwater body
(PoC 3 PoC 4) reduces the maximum pollutant concentra-
tions by factors between 6.5 and 6.9. The results from the trans-
port modeling are subsequently used to determine completion
criteria for landfill leachate.

Table 3. Attenuation factors (AF) calculated for subsurface transport of chloride (Cl), ammonia-nitrogenNH4-N and chemical
oxygen demand (COD) based on the scenario-based emission estimates. Attenuation factors relate to specific sections of the
transport pathway in the subsurface. For instance, the AF at PoC 2 describes the reduction of the maximum concentration
between PoC 1 and PoC 2. Consequently, the total attenuation factor between the landfill base and PoC 3 for chloride in
Scenario A* would be 147.5 (=1.683.81.1)

Status quo Status quo* Scenario A Scenario A* Scenario B

PoC 1 AFCl: 20 AFCl: 1 AFCl 1.8
a: AFCl 1.6
a: AFCl: 1
AFNH4-N: 20 AFNH4-N: 1 AFNH4-Na: 4.3 AFNH4-Na: 3.4 AFNH4-N: 1
AFCODa: 1.4 AFCODa: 1 AFCODa: 5.8 AFCODa: 1.8 AFCODa: 1
PoC 2 AF: 61950 AF: 620.5 AFCl: 265.5 AFCl: 83.8 AF: 13.5
AFNH4-N: 84.5 AFNH4-N: 43.7
AFCOD: 92.1 AFCOD: 97,8
PoC 3 AF: 1.1 AF: 1.1 AF: 1.1 AF: 1.1 AF: 1.1
PoC 4 AF: 6.9 AF: 6.9 AF: 6.9 AF: 6.8 AF: 6.5
aAttenuation factor for vadose zone transport (between landfill base and PoC 1) has been calculated using the concentration in the leachate at

the time of maximum emission load to the subsurface (mass balance approach).

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016

Laner et al. 97

Table 4. Completion criteria for chloride (Cl), ammonia-nitrogen (NH4-N) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the leachate
of the Breitenau landfill

Parameter Compliance Status quo Status quo* Scenario A Scenario A* Scenario B

criterion at PoC 3
[mg l1] C0 [mg l1] C0 [mg l1] C0 [mg l1] C0 [mg l1] C0 [mg l1]
Cl 200 >10 000 >10 000 >10 000 >10 000 2872
NH4-N 0.5 >10 000 331 195 78 7
COD 5.0 >10 000 3309 2840 913 72
NO3-Na 1.13 >10 000 748 441 177 16
aComplete nitrification of NH -N is considered in the groundwater: the quality criteria for nitrate at PoC 3 is set to 5 mg l1, which would
4
increase the total NO3 concentration in the groundwater leachate plume by around 50% to a bit below 15 mg l1 (the drinking water limit
for nitrate is 50 mg l1); the concentration of oxygen in the groundwater upstream of the landfill is >8 mg l1 resulting in a minimum annual
oxygen load of 180 kg O2 yr1 flowing into the leachate mixing zone. In case of Scenario A*, approximately 50% of the oxygen would be depleted
because of the nitrification of ammonium-nitrogen contained in the leachate.

Figure 6. Schematic illustration of the pollutant transport pathway in the subsurface environment at the Breitenau landfill.

Completion criteria and potential
aftercare durations
Completion criteria. The leachate-related completion criteria
are calculated by applying Austrian drinking water quality stan-
dards (TVW, 2001) as compliance criteria at PoC 3. However, the
optional quality standard for nitrate-nitrogen (if nitrification in
the groundwater is to be considered) is based on the nitrate con-
centrations of the upstream groundwater and is limited to a maxi-
mum increase of nitrate concentrations in the groundwater plume
by 50%, which corresponds to 5 mg NO3 l1 (Table 4). PoC 3 is
chosen as the pollutant concentrations in the leachate plume
(thickness of 0.5 m) shall comply with drinking water quality
standards at the property border, notwithstanding the fact that the
groundwater stream is directed towards a forest without current,
or planned, groundwater uses and no residential building within
a distance of 1.5 km. The consequent maximum tolerable con-
centrations of Cl, NH4-N (with an additional calculation to con-
sider nitrification), and COD in the leachate are presented in
Table 4 for each emission scenario. In any case, NH4-N can be
identified as the most critical leachate parameter, as the observed
concentrations are above tolerable concentration levels for the
scenarios status quo*, A, A* and B if no nitrification is assumed
and for the scenarios A, A* and B if nitrification is taken into
account. With scenario A* (gradual deterioration of top cover
system and ineffective technical barrier at the landfill base) cho-
sen as the significant long-term emission scenario at the site, the
tolerable concentration of NH4-N in the landfill leachate is 78
mg l1 (no nitrification) or 177 mg l1 (considering nitrification)
(see Table 4). Concentrations of NH4-N observed currently in the
leachate are higher by a factor of 27 than tolerable levels.
For landfill gas, completion criteria are defined for the meth-
ane flux into the top cover system and for the methane flux into
the atmosphere. The flux criterion for the former is 0.5 l CH4 m2
h1 (4.2 m CH4 m2 yr1) and for the latter 0.05 l CH4 m2 h1
(0.42 m CH4 m2 yr1). Consequently, if the inflow criterion is
applied, it has to be demonstrated that the fraction of methane
oxidation in the top cover is 90% or above.
Apart from the emission-related completion criteria above,
further completion criteria are implied by the choice of the long-
term emission scenario: long-term geotechnical stability of the

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016

98 Waste Management & Research 30(9) Supplement
landfill; surveillance of the cover to exclude damages and rapid
deterioration, use restrictions of the site to avoid intrusion, etc.;
and monitoring of ambient concentrations in the environment.
Potential aftercare durations. Three different aftercare strate-
gies are compared to illustrate the effect of aftercare measures on
leachate emissions. If top cover performance is kept constant at
the best level (0.5% of annual precipitation infiltrate into the
landfill) during the whole aftercare period, it will take more than
500 years until tolerable concentrations of NH4-N in the leachate
can be reached (no matter if nitrification in the groundwater is
considered or not). If water infiltration through the top cover is
kept at the level of 5% of annual precipitation during aftercare
[the legally-required maximum infiltration rate after final cover
in Austria (DVO 2008)], it will take approximately 270 years (no
nitrification) or 110 years (nitrification), respectively, to reach
tolerable NH4-N levels in the leachate. Finally, if the same maxi-
mum infiltration rate as during the period of temporary cover
(25% of annual precipitation infiltrate into the landfill) is
allowed for, the concentrations of NH4-N are expected to comply
with leachate criteria within 55 years (no nitrification) or 20
years (nitrification) respectively. Hence, depending on the after-
care management it may take between 20 and >500 years to
comply with leachate completion criteria for NH4-N, even if full
nitrification of (potentially released) ammonia is assumed in the
groundwater at the site. However, in order to consider nitrifica-
tion in the groundwater it would have to be demonstrated for the
site, provided that authorities would consent to using a part of
the groundwater as a potential long-term treatment filter. In any
case, leachate-related aftercare durations at the Breitenau landfill
lie in the range of centuries based on the current management
strategy.
With respect to landfill gas, after 30 years (in 2040) the worst
case estimates (Figure 4) on future methane production rates
range below the inflow criterion. If methane oxidation in the top
cover was not considered, the emission criterion could be met
after 65 (lower curve in Figure 4) to 100 years (upper curve in
Figure 4) respectively. In any case, it can be expected that meth-
ane emissions will become environmentally insignificant while
aftercare measures will be still necessary to control and manage
leachate emissions at the site.
Discussion and conclusion
The evaluation of aftercare completion is based on the environ-
mental risks associated with a closed landfill in the absence of
aftercare. As substantial uncertainty is inherent in an evaluation
of long-term environmental impacts, the presented methodology
builds on scenario-based assessments to determine the environ-
mentally-tolerable state of the landfill at the end of aftercare.
Aftercare completion criteria are derived based on the combina-
tion of different models and include tolerable emission levels at
the site, as well as criteria associated with the long-term emis-
sion scenario underlying the evaluation.
The application of the methodology is illustrated for the
Breitenau landfill, a closed MSW landfill around 60 km south of
Vienna. At the site, leachate-related aftercare measures are
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016
expected to be necessary for centuries, as NH4-N concentrations
in the leachate will not comply over such time periods with the
determined completion criteria (even if nitrification is considered
to occur in the groundwater). While aftercare measures address-
ing leachate emissions need to be maintained at the site for many
decades to centuries, landfill gas emissions are expected to be
environmentally insignificant within several decades, especially
if methane oxidation in the cover can be demonstrated to mitigate
negative effects from landfill gas production. As the extent of
leachate-related aftercare measures is dominated primarily by the
persistent presence of ammonia in the leachate at high concentra-
tions, low-intensity and low-technology solutions for the long-
term treatment of ammonia, as well as the demonstration of
natural attenuation mitigating a potential release of ammonia to
the subsurface may be substantial elements of the long-term
management concept at the Breitenau landfill.
Following up on the evaluation, monitoring is necessary in the
future to validate the models underlying the emission scenarios
(e.g. leachate emission model) and to adapt the measurement fre-
quency and parameter selection to suit the data requirements of
the evaluation. In general, this means replacing cost-intensive
measurement campaigns by informed measurements reflecting
the emission status of the landfill restricted to environmentally-
significant factors. On the one hand, the site evaluation and con-
sequent monitoring will allow gathering information required to
demonstrate aftercare completion to authorities from early on
during aftercare. On the other hand, goal-oriented (i.e. related to
the desired state of the landfill at the end of aftercare) monitoring
will allow for the effective use of aftercare funds with respect to
the long management periods required at MSW landfills.
In view of the potentially long aftercare periods at closed
MSW landfills, increasing attention should be given to research
about the lasting effect of enhanced emission reduction meas-
ures after landfill closure (e.g. in situ aeration, flushing) and to
low-intensity technologies suitable for dealing with residual
emissions persisting at the landfill for long time (e.g. methane
oxidation in bio-active covers or extensive leachate treatment
concepts especially addressing NH4-N). As the presented meth-
odology allows for linking the intensity and duration of after-
care in view of the conditions at the landfill, it forms a valuable
basis to plan and optimize landfill aftercare and therefore enable
environmentally-protective, cost-effective long-term landfill
management. To highlight the utility of the methodology as a
decision support tool on aftercare management and completion,
case studies including regulatory review and acceptance are
needed.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry, Environment and Water Management as well as the
Austrian Federal States for supporting research related to this work.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in
the public, commercial of not-for-profit sectors.
Laner et al. 99
References
Baccini P (ed.) (1989) The Landfill Reactor and Final Storage. Lecture
Notes in Earth Sciences. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Barlaz MA, Ham RK, Schaefer DM and Isaacson R (1990) Methane pro-
duction from municipal refuse: A review of enhancement techniques
and microbial dynamics. Critical Reviews in Environmental Control 19:
557584.
Barlaz MA, Rooker AP, Kjeldsen P, Gabr MA and Borden RC (2002) Critical
evaluation of factors required to terminate the postclosure monitoring
period at solid waste landfills. Environmental Science & Technology 36:
34573464.
Belevi H and Baccini P (1989) Long-Term behavior of municipal solid waste
landfills. Waste Management Research 7: 4356.
Binner E, Lechner P, Ziegler C and Riehl-Herwirsch G (1997). The Breitenau
testlandfill water balance, emissions and a look into the landfill body.
In: Sixth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium,
October 13-17, 1997, Sardinia, Italy. S. Margherita di Pula: CISA.
Bonaparte R, Daniel DE and Koerner RM (2002). Assessment and
Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment
Systems. Cincinnati, OH: US Environment Protection Agency.
Bookter TJ and Ham RK (1982) Stabilization of solid waste in landfills.
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division 108: 10891100.
Chanton J, Abichou T, Langford C, Spokas K, Hater G, Green R, Goldsmith
D and Barlaz MA (2011) Observations on the methane oxidation capacity
of landfill soils. Waste Management 31: 914925.
Christensen TH, Bjerg PH and Kjeldsen P (2000) Natural attenuation: A
feasible approach to remediation of groundwater pollution at landfills?
Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 20: 6977.
DVO (2008) Deponieverordnung (Landfill directive). BGBl. II Nr. 39.
Vienna: Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and
Water Management.
El-Fadel M, Findikakis AN and Leckie JO (1997) Environmental impacts of
solid waste landfilling. Journal of Environmental Management 50: 125.
Environment Agency (2010) The Surrender of Permits for the Permanent
Deposit of Waste. Bristol: Environment Agency.
European Parliament (1999) Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.
Official Journal of the European Communities, Council of the European
Union: L182/1.
Farquhar GJ and Rovers FA (1973) Gas production during refuse decom-
position. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 2: 483495.
Fellner J, Dberl G, Allgaier G and Brunner PH (2009) Comparing field
investigations with laboratory models to predict landfill leachate
emissions. Waste Management 29: 18441851.
Fellner J, Prantl R, Berger H, Brezinschek H, Budischowsky A, Danzer
M, et al. (2008) Konzeptionelle berlegungen zur Entlassung aus der
Deponienachsorge [Conceptional thoughts on landfill completion]. Wien:
sterreichischer Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaftsverband.
Gibbons R and Bull L (2006) Statistically-based data evaluation meth-
odologies for municipal solid waste (MSW) leachate. In: Waste Tech
Landfill Technology Conference. February 27, 2006, Phoenix, AZ,
USA. Phoenix: Waste Tech.
Huber-Humer M (2004) Abatement of Landfill Methane Emissions by
Microbial Oxidation in Biocovers Made of Compost. Vienna: Institute
for Waste Management.
Inyang HI (2004) Modeling the long-term performance of waste containment
systems. Environmental Science & Technology 38: 328A334A.
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at KoBSON on July 15, 2016
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Kjeldsen P, Barlaz MA, Rooker AP, Baun A, Ledin A and Christensen TH
(2002) Present and long-term composition of msw landfill leachate: a
review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 32:
297336.
Krmpelbeck I (2000) Untersuchungen zum langfristigen Verhalten von
Siedlungsabfalldeponien [Investigations of the long-term behavior of
MSW landfills]. Wuppertal: Fachbereich Bauingenieurwesen, Bergische
Universitt.
Kylefors K. (2003) Evaluation of leachate composition by multivariate
data analysis (MVDA). Journal of Environmental Management 68:
367376.
Laner D (2011). Understanding and Evaluating Long-term Environmental
Risks from Landfills. Vienna: Institute for Water Quality, Resources and
Waste Management, Vienna University of Technology.
Laner D, Fellner J and Brunner PH (2011a) Environmental compatibility of
closed landfills assessing future pollution hazards. Waste Management
& Research 29: 8998.
Laner D, Fellner J and Brunner PH (2011b) Future landfill emissions and the
effect of final cover installation A case study. Waste Management 31:
15221531.
Laner D, Crest M, Scharff H, Morris JWF and Barlaz MA (2012) A review
of approaches for the long-term management of municipal solid waste
landfills. Waste Management 32: 498512.
Morris JWF and Barlaz MA (2011) A performance-based system for the
long-term management of municipal waste landfills. Waste Management
31: 649662.
Riehl-Herwirsch G, Lechner P, Binner E, Carniel P, Hackenberg M, Lahner T,
et al. (1995) Hausmllversuchsanlage Breitenau Untersuchungen zum
quantitativen und qualitativen Wasserhaushalt 19861991 [Experimental
MSW landfill Breitenau quantitative and qualitative water regime].
Wien: Bundesministerium fr Land-und Forstwirtschaft.
Rowe RK (2005) Long-term performance of contaminant barrier systems.
Geotechnique 55: 631678.
Scharff H, van Zomeren A and van der Sloot HA (2011) Landfill sustain-
ability and aftercare completion criteria. Waste Management & Research
29: 3040.
Schneider W and Stfen H (2004) Nomogramme der Sickerwasserprognose
[Nomograms in leachate prognosis]. Grundwasser 2004: 5466.
Stegmann R, Heyer K-U, Hupe K and Willand A (2006) Deponienachsorge
Handlungsoptionen, Dauer, Kosten und quantitative Kriterien
fr die Entlassung aus der Nachsorge [Landfill aftercare options,
duration, costs and quantitative criteria for completion]. Dessau:
Umweltbundesamt.
TWV (2001) Verordnung ber die Qualitt von Wasser fr den menschlichen
Gebrauch (Trinkwasserverordnung TWV) [Directive on drinking water
quality]. BGBl. II Nr.304: 18. Vienna: Federal Ministry of Labour, Social
Affairs and Consumer Protection.
US EPA (2005). Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) Version
3.02 Users Guide. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection
Agency.
van Genuchten MT (1982) Analytical Solutions of the one-dimensional con-
vectivedispersive solute transport equation. Washington DC: Agricultural
Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Zweifel H-R, Johnson CA and Hoehn E (1999) Langzeitanalysen der
Hauptemlemente von Sickerwsseren aus Altdeponien [Long-term analy-
ses of major elements in leachate from old landfills]. Mll und Abfall 12:
727732.